Oh, murder!

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;413500]

Sure.

"To construct a scene of desecration to change things" =

To construct: included controlling, planning and preparing. All those elements was prior to the actual murder.

A scene: the specific place and its contents where the result is to be seen. The results were to be seen on the streets and in yards. But with Kelly it had to be seen indoors.

Of desecration: the female body was sacred but not in a religious way. These women had destroyed their own bodies. The idea was that that type of women should not have female attributes.

That's all a bit speculative isn't it?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;413501]

That's all a bit speculative isn't it?

Not for me, John.

[Sam Flynn]

But she was hardly living in high quality, soundproofed accommodation. But if your scenario is correct no one heard her return with the murderer; no one heard her conversing with him; no one heard anyone moving about

Nobody heard anything inside 29 Hanbury Street, either, but it was full of people who were on the brink of waking up, if not already awake - and all of them were in the same physical building. The same cannot be said of the scattered residents of Miller's Court.

And, I re-emphasise, I don't envisage the killer waiting around for ages, only for as long as it took to lull her into a false sense of security before catching her off-guard. That doesn't give much of a window for witnesses to hear anything.

By the way, what was her assailant doing whilst she was undressing? Was he undressing as well?

I don't see why he needed to do that.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Abby Normal;413442]

if you have any other ideas of why he would purposely cut her through the sheet please expound, because I cant think of any others.

We do not know where the sheet was when it was cut.

Cutting in darkness would lead to cutting of things.

[John G]

Nobody heard anything inside 29 Hanbury Street, either, but it was full of people who were on the brink of waking up, if not already awake - and all of them were in the same physical building. The same cannot be said of the scattered residents of Miller's Court.

And, I re-emphasise, I don't envisage the killer waiting around for ages, only for as long as it took to lull her into a false sense of security before catching her off-guard. That doesn't give much of a window for witnesses to hear anything.

I don't see why he needed to do that.

Yes, but Chapman was murdered outside, i.e. not inside a multi-occupancy building with thin walls.

You say the killer didn't wait around for ages. However, in your scenario he must have delayed until they reached Kelly's accommodation; further delayed during any (unheard) conversation they had; and then further delayed until Kelly had virtually completely undressed, apart from a single undergarment and one stocking.

If the assailant didn't also undress that would surely have seemed very odd to Kelly.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;413502]

Not for me, John.

By definition, it has to be speculative as it can't be based on knowledge.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;413508]

By definition, it has to be speculative as it can't be based on knowledge.

For you, yes.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;413511]

For you, yes.

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that you've no proof, which can only be in the nature of a confession, that you're willing to disclose.

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, but Chapman was murdered outside, i.e. not inside a multi-occupancy building with thin walls.

Only the partition was thin, and abutted onto the stairwell. Prater was at the other end of the house, pissed and asleep, with her door barricaded. The other residents were scattered throughout Miller's Court, most of them also asleep. The residents of 29 Hanbury were in the same building as Chapman and her killer passed through, and many were about to get up for work.

You say the killer didn't wait around for ages. However, in your scenario he must have delayed until they reached Kelly's accommodation

Yes, and for a minute or two - that's all - inside.

If the assailant didn't also undress that would surely have seemed very odd to Kelly.

Why?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

She was found in bed and wearing a nightdress which, as I noted earlier, indicates she'd retired for the night.

Hi John.
I don't think it does, what I think is that you are confusing our modern more luxurious tendencies to undress for bed in something light and comfortable, because our bedrooms are warm and cozy.
This was the East end John, the poor and destitute living in drafty hovels.

We have firsthand accounts from a couple of witnesses that they went to sleep fully dressed. These houses were cold and drafty, these poor women did not waste precious kindling on a fire unless it was to earn some money.
Kelly was dressed in her nightdress because she was entertaining. If she had been alone she would have gone to bed clothed, like the other women of her class.

[Elamarna]

If the assailant didn't also undress that would surely have seemed very odd to Kelly.

John, what's to say he didn't. Indeed have not some suggested that he may have undressed to prevent his clothes being covered in blood.

Not something I think myself, but a possibility.

Steve

[Michael W Richards]

John, what's to say he didn't. Indeed have not some suggested that he may have undressed to prevent his clothes being covered in blood.

Not something I think myself, but a possibility.

Steve

I don't see any problem with the killer undressing as a real possibility, nor do I see any with Sams idea that she wasn't completely sleeping when the attack started. Someone arriving at 4am that is a "friend" of Marys and is granted entry is an intimate "friend".

Which is why in this case I believe people should be looking for the other Joe she was seeing, perhaps Issacs, or other liaison "friends" who, for whatever reason, wanted to punish Mary Kelly. To make her ugly to look at.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;413512]

I'm going to take a wild guess here and say that you've no proof, which can only be in the nature of a confession, that you're willing to disclose.

A confession isn´t enough for us to know who the Whitechapel murderer was.

[Sam Flynn]

Kelly was dressed in her nightdress because she was entertaining. If she had been alone she would have gone to bed clothed, like the other women of her class.

Thanks for that very interesting observation, Jon. Food for thought!

[Michael W Richards]

Thanks for that very interesting observation, Jon. Food for thought!

The fact that Mary had a room in her own name and lived primarily off the kindness of men and solicitation puts her in a class of her own Sam, few if any other street women had their own room, by themselves, in their name. Which allows for much greater privacy, hence, undressing for bed. Like the neatly piled clothing found in the room suggests.